Abbott Diabetes Care Inc & Ors v Dexcom Inc & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1687 (22 December 2025)

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc & Ors v Dexcom Inc & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1687 (22 December 2025)

EP 627 was not anticipated by the STS Guide because the countdown to sensor expiry was not a 'predetermined routine' as properly construed, and the two notifications did not relate to the same 'predefined alarm condition'. EP 223 was not anticipated by Gejdos in respect of 'selective enablement' because the prior art did not necessarily disclose disabling safety critical features while enabling non-safety critical features; however, Gejdos did disclose a 'safety critical application' and both installation and functional checks as required by the claim.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1687
Parties
Claimants/appellants: Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and others; Defendants/respondents: Dexcom Inc. and others; Intervener: Comptroller-General of Patents
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Patent Validity
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Novelty, Anticipation, Patent Construction, Expert Evidence, Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology
Intellectual Property Patents Patent Validity Novelty Anticipation Patent Construction Expert Evidence Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technology

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and others

Claimants/appellants

Dexcom Inc. and others

Defendants/respondents

Comptroller-General of Patents

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Patent Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Patent Validity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether EP 627 and EP 223 are anticipated by prior art and thus invalid for lack of novelty
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'predetermined routine' and 'predefined alarm condition' in EP 627
  3. 3 Whether Gejdos prior art discloses all features of EP 223 including 'selective enablement'

Ratio Decidendi

EP 627 was not anticipated by the STS Guide because the countdown to sensor expiry was not a 'predetermined routine' as properly construed, and the two notifications did not relate to the same 'predefined alarm condition'. EP 223 was not anticipated by Gejdos in respect of 'selective enablement' because the prior art did not necessarily disclose disabling safety critical features while enabling non-safety critical features; however, Gejdos did disclose a 'safety critical application' and both installation and functional checks as required by the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in respect of grounds 1(a) and 1(b) for EP 627; order revoking EP 627 set aside
  • Appeal allowed in respect of ground 3 for EP 223; order revoking EP 223 set aside